Crucifix or Plain Cross?

Even the difference between a crucifix and a plain cross can, incredibly, become a source of division among Christians. Extreme anti-Catholics like to say a crucifix “keeps Jesus on the cross forever,” a sign that his death is really not complete because—according to them—Catholics crucify Christ over and over again at every Mass.

Anyone with even a basic knowledge of Catholic sacramental theology knows this isn’t true. And while both a crucifix and a cross are worthy symbols to direct the attention of a Christian to the Savior, a crucifix is a richer symbol. I would like to simply share my own perspective when I look at each, a perspective informed by the historical fact that Jesus Christ was not the only person to be crucified—but his crucifixion was unique among the many, many thousands of others who were killed by this procedure.

When I look at a plain cross with nobody depicted on it, I see an instrument of terrorism, torture and execution upon which many thousands of people were grotesquely slaughtered at the hands of the Roman government (as well as others) over a period of about a thousand years. Looking at a plain cross I see an instrument devised by cold-hearted human beings to deliberately inflict terror and unspeakable cruelty upon other human beings, horrifying cruelty unimaginable in the civilized mind. I see the evil of those that conceived such a device, and the inhumanity of those who were involved in nailing fellow-human beings to their death.

Looking at only the instrument minus a victim (for these things had thousands of victims), numerous adjectives come to mind: horrendous, loathsome, abominable, gruesome, appalling, heinous, shameful, revolting, sickening.

When I look at a crucifix depicting Jesus on one of these crosses, I see only one of the many thousands of executions that took place through crucifixion—one that was extraordinarily unique. Here God’s own Son willingly succumbed to this humiliating and awful torture out of total, selfless love for sinners. In this unique crucifixion Jesus Christ took on humanity’s most vile enemy and conquered it for all time. This was a unique crucifixion, vastly different from all the others taking place on this same instrument, and some adjectives that come to mind are: wonderful, glorious, loving, devoted, generous, passionate, wondrous, awesome, heroic, magnificent, triumphant, sacred.

On a crucifix I see an image of the total, self-sacrificing and self-giving love and mercy of the God who laid down his life for us; a plain cross suggests that potential, a crucifix displays it. While both are valid and worthy symbols of Jesus Christ, a crucifix is a much more powerful and accurate reminder of who he is and what he did for us.

Why Pray for the Dead, and Why Ask Them to Pray for Us?

Why would anyone pray for the dead? And why would we try to ask people in Heaven to pray for us? Before we can address these questions we first need to understand the answers to two others: Why do we pray for anyone, especially a fellow believer, who is alive on earth with us? And why do we ask others on earth to pray for us?

A simple answer might be that the Bible tells us to in a number of places, perhaps most notably Ephesians 6:18-19, in which Paul tells the Ephesians they should be “praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints—and for me, that utterance may be given to me.”

But how does this make any sense in light of the clear Biblical teaching that Jesus Christ is our only Mediator?

I can pray to Jesus directly; I don’t need anybody else to do that for me. If you agree with that, then why would I ask anyone else to pray for me? And why would I pray for anyone else when they can also pray directly without me? And why would Paul, of all people, ask for prayers—he had a direct supernatural encounter with Jesus, a clear, unobstructed path.

It would seem that anyone who puts forth this reasoning to argue that we have no business asking Mary or other saints in Heaven to pray for us had better stop asking anyone on earth to pray for them as well. You have only one Mediator between you and God, so you’d better stop asking your pastor or your neighbor or your brother to pray for you.

And you’d better stop praying for other people, stop trying to be another mediator, because by doing so you’re trying to usurp the role of Christ.

Does that sound silly? Of course it does—especially to someone who understands the real reason we pray for others and ask their prayers for us.

We are not mediators for each other, that’s Jesus’ unique role. Jesus is the one Mediator between God and all of humanity. And we really don’t need anybody else to intercede for us, because we can all pray directly ourselves. Jesus taught this clearly in Matthew 6:6 where he says:

“When you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.”

But what we do need is an intimate connection to the other members of the Body of Christ to which we are all joined as one. We cannot live as individual members of the Body without a powerful connection to each other. (1 Corinthians 12)

Prayer is that connection, for when we pray for each other we enter intimately into each other’s spiritual life—not just physical, emotional and mental life, but spiritual life, in which we are ultimately one Body. Prayer is the blood that circulates throughout the entire Body of Christ, much like the blood in my physical body establishes a bond between my right hand and my left ankle, for the same blood flows through both. Our prayer for each other draws us into a closer bond with each other and with Jesus the true Mediator.

So we pray for others, and we ask them to pray for us, not because we need their mediation or even intercession for God to hear us (as if God won’t listen to me unless someone more influential speaks on my behalf), but so that we can be a stronger, complete Body.

And if it is true that the Body of Christ is one, not divided, then it is true that we are part of the same Body as all the other members, including those who have preceded us in death. So we continue to pray for them, and they pray for us, because we are still one Body in Christ and need to maintain that connection through prayer, the life blood of the Body.

What Pope Francis Really Said About Homosexuality

It’s been seven months since Pope Francis made his famous “who am I to judge” remark in answer to a question about a “gay lobby” in the Curia, and its waves continue to wash ashore—bringing both cleansing waters and dead fish. To those who understand Catholic teaching on homosexuality it’s a refreshing reminder of the love Jesus commands us to have for all people. For those who don’t—and particularly those who don’t want to—it’s misconstrued as a blessing on homosexual activity.

A notable case of the latter occurred in November when the Illinois legislature passed a bill making the state the sixteenth in the nation to legalize “homosexual marriage.” Several Catholic lawmakers who were initially undecided about the bill cited Pope Francis’ remarks as the deciding factor that led them to vote in favor. Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia told the Chicago Tribune: “As a Catholic follower of Jesus and the pope, Pope Francis, I am clear that our Catholic religious doctrine has at its core love, compassion and justice for all people.” Catholic Speaker of the House Michael Madigan told the Tribune: “For those that just happen to be gay—living in a very harmonious, productive relationship but illegal—who am I to judge that they should be illegal?”

This despite the fact that Pope Francis and the Roman Catholic Church consider homosexual acts to be “intrinsically disordered,” are “contrary to the natural law,” and “under no circumstances can they be approved.” (The Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2357)

So what did Pope Francis really say? Let’s take the radical approach of reading his entire quote in its context.

Pope Francis fielded questions from reporters aboard his airplane on the way back to Rome from World Youth Day activities in July. For nearly an hour and a half he took questions on any topic, refusing to answer none. His answers to the final two questions have drawn the most attention.

The first of these concerned claims that Msgr. Battista Ricca, whom Pope Francis had chosen to head the Institute for the Works of Religion (more commonly known as the Vatican Bank) had engaged in homosexual activity years ago. According to a transcript by Andrea Tornielli of Vatican Insider, this was the Pope’s answer:

“I have acted in accordance with Canon Law and ordered an investigation. None of the accusations against him have proved to be true. We haven’t found anything! It is often the case in the Church that people try to dig up sins committed during a person’s youth and then publish them. We are not talking about crimes or offenses such as child abuse which is a whole different matter, we are talking about sins. If a lay person, a priest or a nun commits a sin and then repents of it and confesses, the Lord forgives and forgets. And we have no right not to forget, because then we risk the Lord not forgetting our own sins. I often think of St. Peter who committed the biggest sin of all, he denied Jesus. And yet he was appointed Pope. But I repeat, we have found no evidence against Msgr. Ricca.”

The final question concerned the Pope’s earlier confirmation of the presence of a “gay lobby” in the Curia. This was his response (emphasis added):

“There is so much written about the gay lobby. I haven’t met anyone in the Vatican who has ‘gay’ written on their identity cards. There is a distinction between being gay, being this way inclined and lobbying. Lobbies are not good. If a gay person is in eager search of God, who am I to judge them? The Catholic Church teaches that gay people should not be discriminated against; they should be made to feel welcome. Being gay is not the problem, lobbying is the problem and this goes for any type of lobby, business lobbies, political lobbies and Masonic lobbies.”

Pope Francis first of all made a clear distinction between merely having a same-sex attraction, which the Church acknowledges is beyond one’s control, and a “lobby,” which is an organized effort to pursue homosexual activity and agendas. Note the sentence I underlined, where he is clear that when he says “being gay” he is referring merely to having same-sex attraction, and “lobbying” as promoting homosexual activity. He clearly condemned the latter: “Lobbies are not good…. Being gay [simply having the attraction] is not the problem, lobbying [acting upon the attraction in various ways] is the problem.”

Regarding those he says he should not judge, it is a gay person (meaning one having same-sex attraction) who is “in eager search of God,” meaning they are trying to live according to the Gospel by, among other things, resisting the temptation to act on their unnatural sexual impulses.

In other words, Pope Francis said that he will not judge someone to be a member of a gay lobby simply because that person has a same-sex attraction. That would be stereotyping all persons with same-sex attraction as gay lobbyists, which would be unjust.

(Note also in his answer to the first question, about alleged homosexual activity by Msgr. Ricca, that he refers to such activity as “sin.” The issue was not whether or not Msgr. Ricca’s alleged homosexual activity was sin, but whether it actually occurred and, if it did, had he repented of this sin.)

Of course all of this is basic Catholic teaching, as spelled out plainly in The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

“Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.” (#2358-2359)”

Reporting on the media frenzy these remarks caused last summer, Scott P. Richert made this astute observation:

“The most ridiculous part of this media frenzy is that Pope Francis’s remarks are no different than remarks that Pope Benedict himself made many times during his pontificate, remarks that simply reflect (as the Holy Father noted) the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Like the media circus in 2010 over Pope Benedict’s remarks on condoms, this sudden ‘controversy’ tells us more about the sexual obsessions of modern man—and the willingness of the media, both secular and Catholic, to play to those obsessions—than it does about Pope Francis.”

Infant Baptism: A Quiz

Then they also brought infants to Him that He might touch them; but when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to Him and said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.” Luke 18:15-17

Here’s a list of questions for Evangelical Christians on the topic of infant baptism.

1. Do you believe that every child is conceived as a son or daughter of God, that they ultimately belong to God, and that earthly parents are the caretakers of children who truly belong to God? If yes, read on. (If no, there’s no point in reading on.)

2. Do you believe the ultimate reason for the existence of every child is for them to be in eternal relationship with their Heavenly Father through Jesus Christ who saves them from sin? If yes, read on.

3. If all children really belong to God, and their true destiny is to be eternally joined to Him through Jesus Christ, is it the responsibility of Christian parents to do everything in their power from the moment of conception to lead them to their Heavenly Father through Jesus Christ? If yes, read on.

4. Is the saving death of Jesus Christ the most precious, most invaluable gift available to any person? If yes, read on.

5. Did Jesus call his saving death “baptism” in Mark 10:38-39 and Luke 12:50? If yes, read on.

6. Did Paul teach that our baptism is a burial into that same saving death of Jesus Christ—His “baptism”—in Romans 6:3-4? If yes, read on.

7. If you answered “yes” to question 4, is burial into this most precious, invaluable gift the highest good for any person? If yes, read on.

8. Should a human parent, responsible for the care of God’s children, knowingly withhold from their child the most precious, invaluable  gift available to them, the greatest good? If no, read on. (If yes, there’s no point in reading on.)

9. Should human parents wait until after a child becomes ill to seek an immunization, or should they have them immunized before infection arises? (If the latter, read on.)

10. Does a child need intellectual understanding of what a particular medicine is and how it works before it should be administered to them? Does intellectual understanding affect how a medicine works? If no, read on.

11. Is Jesus Christ infinitely more powerful than any medicine? Is His power and grace able to work within a person in a way similar to but much more powerful than medicine? If yes, read on.

12. Is there a reason why the same principles in question 10 should not be applied to Jesus? If no, read on.

13. Did Jesus command baptism—which He calls His saving death and Paul calls a participation in it—as a primary mission of the Church in Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:16? If yes, read on.

14. Did Jesus say that infants should be brought to him for His touch—rebuking those who said they should not be—in Luke 18:15-17? If yes, read on.

15. Did Jesus also say in this passage: “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it”? If yes, read on.

16. Do you now understand why baptizing infants makes perfect sense? If no, read this again.

Purgatory: Why All the Fuss?

The doctrine of purgatory is one that any Christian should easily understand and accept. So why is it not? There seems to be confusion over a fundamental difference between forgiveness and purification; they are certainly not the same thing.

If forgiveness purified me, I would never need to seek forgiveness again—if I was pure, I’d commit no offenses that need to be forgiven. But I constantly need forgiveness, so I am not yet purified. Forgiveness cleanses me, refreshes and invigorates me, and gives me a new chance.

But purifies me? No. I am not pure, despite the countless times I have been forgiven—and for that very reason I know I still need to be purified, no amount of forgiveness will do that, and I can’t purify myself.

Heaven is a place of perfection, where everyone is pure. Many people leave this earth forgiven, but no one leaves pure. A purification must take place, performed by the only One who can do so, between our passing from this earth and our entrance into Heaven. If not, Heaven is a place of forgiven people who will still need to be forgiven over and over because they have not been purified, which would make Heaven no different than earth, so what would be the point?

Really, what is so hard to understand and accept about this? And as I asked in my article about the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s perpetual virginity, why does this strike such a nerve?

Mary: Not Just an Ovum Donor

Mary, the Mother of Jesus, is the subject of some of the more egregious myths about the Catholic faith: that Catholics consider her another mediator between God and man, another redeemer, equal to the Holy Trinity, etc. Evangelical Christians, believing these myths to be true, often react by preaching the other extreme which is just as false—that Mary holds no importance at all in the life of a Christian.

As always when faced with two extremes, the truth is found somewhere in the middle. Let’s begin to sort this out by taking a look at what the Catholic Church really teaches about Mary, and how Evangelical critics miss the mark.

We’ll begin with the myth that Catholics believe Mary is another mediator between God and man, another redeemer, or has a divine nature equal with the Holy Trinity. These excerpts from The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (“Lumen Gentium”) issued at the Second Vatican Council in 1964 dispel these notions fairly simply (emphasis added):

“There is but one Mediator as we know from the words of the apostle, ‘for there is one God and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all’. (1 Timothy 2:5-6) The maternal duty of Mary toward men in no wise obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows His power…. In no way does it impede, but rather does it foster the immediate union of the faithful with Christ…. For no creature could ever be counted as equal with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer…. The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate role of Mary.” (Lumen Gentium #60, 62)

With Mary’s subordinate role to Jesus clearly spelled out in Catholic Church documentation, as well as the denial of her as a mediator between God and men or another redeemer, let’s examine the role that Mary does play in the life of a Christian, notably how she assists in the work of her Son.

Let’s first address that very idea—how can anyone assist Jesus in his work, since his work as the mediator and redeemer is something only Jesus can do? Let’s look to Paul for an answer, who wrote this to the Colossians:

“I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church…” (Colossians 1:24)

On the surface this may seem like an outrageously arrogant statement—that not only is there something “lacking” in the afflictions of Christ, but that Paul presumes to fill up this alleged deficiency in his own flesh, completing something Christ cannot finish by himself.

Of course that’s not what Paul is saying. He means that while only Jesus could win salvation—and that work is finished once and for all—Jesus purposefully left the work of bringing his salvation to all the world unfinished, and he calls others to participate in that work. That’s why Paul is traveling and writing and, in the midst of it all, suffering, because Jesus sent him to carry on the unfinished work of bringing the saving Word (which the Gospel of John tells us is Jesus himself) to all nations.

Evangelical Christians will readily let Paul off the hook, understanding what he means by “I fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ,” and will not accuse him of claiming to be another mediator or redeemer equal to or even better than Christ. But they are unwilling to extend the same courtesy to Mary, who filled up in her flesh the actual, literal body and blood of Jesus Christ that would be sacrificed for the forgiveness of sins and released him to the world, playing an even more critical and intimate role than Paul in bringing the salvation of Christ to mankind.

Lumen Gentium puts it this way (emphasis added):

“Just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by the ministers and by the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is really communicated in different ways to His creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source. The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate role of Mary, which it constantly experiences and recommends to the heartfelt attention of the faithful, so that encouraged by this maternal help they may the more closely adhere to the Mediator and Redeemer.” (Lumen Gentium, 62)

Also:

[Mary] conceived, brought forth and nourished Christ. She presented Him to the Father in the temple, and was united with Him by compassion as He died on the Cross. In this singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the work of the Savior in giving back supernatural life to souls. Wherefore she is our mother in the order of grace. (61)

The unique role of Mary in bringing Christ to the world needs to be examined closely, and from a proper perspective.

No Bible-believing Christian can deny that Mary is the only woman in history to conceive a child with the Holy Spirit instead of with a man. Nor would a Bible-believing Christian belittle or diminish the sacred relationship between any two persons who conceive a child in a covenant of love, or deny that this most intimate interaction between persons involves a permanent commitment of love and trust, and a distinct role to play in and for the duration of the lives of each other and the child.

The conception of Jesus established Mary in a spousal relationship with the Holy Spirit, an exclusive relationship to which no other woman has ever been privileged. To deny that Mary enjoys this uniquely intimate relationship with the Holy Trinity—that the Holy Spirit conceived the Father’s only Son with and within her, and through her consent—is first of all to deny a basic Christian truth. To deny this also reduces Mary to merely the “ovum donor” for the Son of God; yet this is what the Evangelical treatment of Mary implies.

This term, of course, is a reference to the expression “sperm donor,” which in modern parlance is understood in both a literal and figurative sense as someone who merely gives a physical element so conception can take place, but has no further or significant relationship with either the mother or the child. In at least the figurative sense it is a pejorative term, castigating someone who should be involved but isn’t.

Yet Mary as merely an “ovum donor” is what Evangelicals imply in many of their arguments to downplay or even eliminate her importance. They often point to Matthew 12:47-50 and Luke 8:19-21, claiming these passages deny any motherly role for Mary or fraternal role for the so-called “brothers,” that Jesus dismisses his actual family by saying that anyone who does the will of God is mother and brother to him. (The irony here is interesting. Mary accomplished the will of God by giving flesh and blood to the Word, so she certainly retains her motherhood according to this definition. Any evangelical who calls himself a follower of the Word thus claims brotherhood with Jesus, and as such necessarily claims Mary for his mother.)

Evangelicals like to point out that Mary isn’t mentioned very often in the New Testament—not at all in the epistles—and that the Scriptures do not show Jesus giving his mother a role in the Church.

(Of course part of the problem is the reliance on Sola Scriptura, whose many weaknesses are explored in three other articles on this blog.)

Evangelicals imply that despite the Scriptures’ declarations of Mary as “favored one” and her exclusive spousal union with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:28, 30, 35), that she is blessed among women (Luke 1:42), that all ages will call her blessed (Luke 1:48), that Mary shares in Jesus’ suffering [which the Scriptures tell us is for the redemption of the world] (Luke 2:34-35), that Jesus was obedient to her as he grew in wisdom and age and favor (Luke 2:51-52) and responded to her intercession (John 2:1-5), that Mary’s role was simply to provide the ovum and the womb, because anyone who does God’s will is Jesus’ mother—there is nothing unique or efficacious about the motherhood of Mary.

(In fact, to reduce Mary to merely an “ovum donor,” one must still acknowledge that the Savior of the world came to the world through her. To then claim that her role in giving Jesus to the world stopped there, that God just used her body parts and had no use for her from there on, is to put God in the same place as a man who uses a woman for a temporary purpose and then lets her go.)

Evangelicals also object to Mary being referred to as the “Mother of God.” To refuse her this title is to either deny that she is the mother of Jesus or to deny that Jesus is God, or to claim that certain things can be said of Jesus’ human nature that can’t be said of his divine nature, that these are separate entities without unity, none of which complies with basic Christian theology.)

The quality, if not quantity, of Scripture passages about Mary show her unique relationship with the Trinity, as well as the many practical implications of that.

Most notable among these is what we read in John 2:1-5, when Jesus performs his first miracle after the intercession of his mother. John, to whom Jesus gave his mother upon the cross, lists Mary first when speaking of the wedding guests. This is not to indicate she is more important than Jesus, but that she has a prominent role.

John shows us in this episode that Mary is an advocate, which leads us to another Catholic teaching about her. We read in Lumen Gentium (emphasis added):

“The Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix. This, however, is so understood that it neither takes away anything from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator.” (Lumen Gentium 62)

The titles of Advocate, Helper, and Benefactress should be self-evident to anyone with knowledge of the Bible. The Bible says repeatedly that God’s people should pray for one another. It also tells us that the Body of Christ is not divided, so we are still connected with the members of the body that have gone to heaven, that they are aware of what happens on earth, and so it is proper to ask them to pray for us as our advocates, helpers and benefactors.

What may not be so self-evident is the term “Mediatrix,” which is different from “Mediator.” As noted above Mary, like Paul and others, shares in the work of Christ. Since she cooperated in a unique way with the Holy Spirit to conceive and bear the Father’s only Son, she cooperates in a unique way in helping to dispense the graces won only by the Son. (This is also why mary is sometimes called “co-redeemer.” It does not mean she is another redeemer, but is called—like Paul—to a special role of helping to spread the redemption won by her Son. Since she is the one the Holy Spirit engaged to bring the Father’s only Son to the world, she shares uniquely in this mission.)

There is a classic traditional three-fold argument against Mary as “Mediatrix,” and a classic response to it, and here it is.

Objections:

 1. There is only one mediator who is such by nature, being both truly God and truly human.

 2. There is only one mediator whose work is necessary, without whom there could be no salvation.

 3. There is only one mediator who depends on no one else for power.

Mary as Mediatrix differs on all three counts:

1. Mary is human, not God. But it is appropriate for God to choose her as Mediatrix because he made her Mother of the Redeemer. Since Mary was intimately associated with her Son’s acquiring grace for us, she also shares with him in distributing that grace to us. It was she who on behalf of the whole human race consented to God's plan of salvation by proclaiming herself “the handmaid of the Lord.”

2. Her role as Mediatrix is not necessary, since Christ was and is the perfect Redeemer and the perfect Mediator. God did not need Mary at all, except that if he decreed the incarnation, he necessarily decreed a Mother. But everything else in which God has employed her is not needed. He wants to.

God wants everything in our life to be as rich as possible, so that he will not stop with something lesser if there is more than can be done. (Why be satisfied with what is good when you can have what is great?) Even though God did not need Mary, he willed to employ her to enrich us. Even though there is no need of any other saints, God wills to add them—all to make everything as rich as possible.

3. Her ability to do anything comes entirely from her Son.

Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity: Why Do They Strike Such a Nerve?

Two Marian dogmas often attacked by Evangelical Christians are the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s perpetual virginity. Both Catholics and Evangelicals can cite Scripture verses that seem to uphold their side of the argument. In fact, these two topics accentuate the limitations of a “Bible-only” approach to faith, for Scripture does not explicitly proclaim one side or the other definitively to be right (if it did, there would be no on-going debate.) So one has to necessarily accept the limitations of Scripture to address these questions—it only takes us so far.

An Evangelical may respond to this by saying: “The reason Scripture does not explicitly confirm or deny these dogmas is because they focus on Mary instead of Jesus—the Gospel is concerned with the Lord, not his mother, so ultimately these so-called dogmas don’t matter.” A Catholic would counter with: “They matter because they don’t stop with Mary—they ultimately point to Jesus, and who He is and what He means for us. And for that we have to go beyond the limitations of Scripture.”

Rather than dive into the perpetual whirlpool of these eternally circling arguments, I want to pose this question to Evangelical Christians: What is it about these two Catholic dogmas that strikes such a raw nerve? When you contemplate Mary’s unique relationship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are either of these dogmas really that outrageous or out of sync with basic Christology? And if so, why?

Let’s first take a look at Mary’s unique relationship with the Holy Trinity with these excerpts from my article “Mary: Not Just an Ovum Donor”:

“No Bible-believing Christian can deny that Mary is the only woman in history to conceive a child with the Holy Spirit instead of with a man. Nor would a Bible-believing Christian belittle or diminish the sacred relationship between any two persons who conceive a child in a covenant of love, or deny that this most intimate interaction between persons involves a permanent commitment of love and trust, and a distinct role to play in and for the duration of the lives of each other and the child.

“The conception of Jesus established Mary in a spousal relationship with the Holy Spirit, an exclusive relationship to which no other woman has ever been privileged. To deny that Mary enjoys this uniquely intimate relationship with the Holy Trinity—that the Holy Spirit conceived the Father’s only Son with and within her, and through her consent—is first of all to deny a basic Christian truth. To deny this also reduces Mary to merely the ‘ovum donor’ for the Son of God; yet this is what the Evangelical treatment of Mary implies….

“Evangelicals imply that despite the Scriptures’ declarations of Mary as “favored one” and her exclusive spousal union with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:28, 30, 35), that she is blessed among women (Luke 1:42), that all ages will call her blessed (Luke 1:48), that Mary shares in Jesus’ suffering [which the Scriptures tell us is for the redemption of the world] (Luke 2:34-35), that Jesus was obedient to her as he grew in wisdom and age and favor (Luke 2:51-52) and responded to her intercession (John 2:1-5), that Mary’s role was simply to provide the ovum and the womb, because anyone who does God’s will is Jesus’ mother—there is nothing unique or efficacious about the motherhood of Mary.

“(In fact, to reduce Mary to merely an ‘ovum donor,’ one must still acknowledge that the Savior of the world came to the world through her. To then claim that her role in giving Jesus to the world stopped there, that God just used her body parts and had no use for her from there on, is to put God in the same place as a man who uses a woman for a temporary purpose and then lets her go.)”

Given all this, is it really that outrageous that the woman chosen for this unique, spousal relationship with the Holy Spirit, the Spirit who would penetrate the most intimate part of her to unite divinity and humanity fully and completely—flesh, blood and spirit—would first be preserved from original sin in preparation for this unique union of God and man? That the God who created the first woman in a state of original, sinless justice at the first creation would create another in the same state to begin His re-creation of mankind? That God would first create an undefiled temple for His only Son to be conceived, gestate and be born to the world?

Is this really that outrageous? Why does it strike such a nerve?

Or that Mary, having given birth to the Son of God, would remain a virgin the rest of her life, that the gate of the temple through which the Lord passed would remain eternally shut for that reason (Ezekiel 44:2)? That Joseph, her earthly spouse, out of reverence for Mary’s Heavenly spouse would not honor the sacredness of that relationship and refrain from entering the intimate sanctuary where divinity and humanity joined in a unique and all-sacred manner?

Is this really that outrageous? Why does it strike such a nerve?